Planned Parenthood is a Scam

Washington DC, February 11, 2017 - Getty Images

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, May 31, 2018

Planned Parenthood is a Scam

Planned Parenthood (PP) is North America's largest abortion provider, known for promoting abortion as a major means to help and show compassion to women and children. PP is also known for selling body parts of aborted fetuses.

Let's bracket discussion of PP's sale of baby parts for another column [update: Planned Parenthood Leaders Admit Under Oath to Harvesting Body Parts from Babies Born Alive]. Here are three (other) reasons for thinking PP is a scam.

1. Mother's Day

Last Mother's Day (May 13th), PP tweeted the following messages:

“Happy #MothersDay! Planned Parenthood is proud to celebrate mothers in the U.S. and around the world. We're committed to fighting for a world where all mothers can live healthy lives, and raise their children in peace.”

“Every woman should be able to decide if and when to be a mother.”

“All women should have the choice to do what they want with their own body.”

In response, Micaiah Bilger of LifeNews.com astutely offered the following critique:

“Though Planned Parenthood pretends otherwise, women who have abortions already are mothers. At the moment of their unborn child’s conception, they became mothers.”

Bilger adds: “And the abortions that Planned Parenthood sells by the hundreds of thousands a year do not give women a choice about 'if and when to be a mother.' They merely make women the mothers of dead babies.”

I would add: Yes, women should have the choice to do what they want with their own body, but abortion kills someone else's body.

PP promoting motherhood by killing children is like Habitat for Humanity reducing homelessness by killing the homeless.

2. Euphemism

The words “planned parenthood” are a euphemism.

A euphemism is a nice way of describing what is in fact not nice. My wife and I taught our young sons to say “I'm going to the washroom” (which is a euphemism) instead of “I'm going to take a ….” (you get the picture).

Because of PP's embrace and promotion of abortion (according to former PP employees, PP even has abortion quotas to help the PP organization stay financially flush), the name Planned Parenthood disguises the reality that “planning” one's family includes DESTROYING unwanted children.

Brutally.

Abortion tears babies' limbs from torsos, crushes babies' heads, and sucks babies' body parts through a tube that could probably serve as a shop-vac.

If the euphemism “planned parenthood” justifies killing one's children, then does “planning dinner” justify poisoning one's dinner guests?

3. Three percent

PP defends itself by arguing abortion is only a tiny bit—3%—of what PP does. But pro-life activist Lila Rose casts serious doubt on PP's claim:

“Planned Parenthood would like you to believe that abortion is only 3% of the total services they provide. 3%. Doesn't sound like very much, does it?”

“But here's how they get to that 3%. They count every 'discrete clinical interaction' as its own service.”

“What is a 'discrete clinical interaction'? Pretty much anything you do from the moment you walk into one of their clinics.”

“I'll give you an example. Let's say a woman comes into Planned Parenthood for one service: an abortion. Before providing an abortion, Planned Parenthood has to confirm that the woman is pregnant, right? So they administer another service: a pregnancy test. That's two services. Then, after the abortion on your way out the door, they hand you a prescription. That's three services.”

“And there are many other services provided during the abortion process that Planned Parenthood claims as 'discrete clinical interactions.'”

“In this way Planned Parenthood is able to rack up 9.5 million of these so-called services each year. Divide the number of abortions—321,000—by 9.5 million, and you get 3%.”

Rose continues: “Even the Washington Post, a Planned Parenthood ally, declared this 3% figure 'very misleading.'”

“Rich Lowry of National Review nicely illustrated this phony statistic: 'It would be like major league baseball saying they sell 20 million hotdogs, but only play 2,430 games, so baseball is only 0.012% of what they do.'”

PP is a scam.

For additional thought: 

• Alexandra Desanctis, What Planned Parenthood's Annual Report Proves (article)
• Calvin Freiburger,  BREAKING: New undercover videos expose Planned Parenthood covering up child sex abuse (article)
• Abby Johnson, unPlanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey Across the Life Line (book)
• Carole Novielli,  Former Planned Parenthood board member: Defund this ‘racist’ organization (article)
• Lila Rose, Exposed: Planned Parenthood's Cover-Up of Child Sex Abuse (video series)
• Hendrik van der Breggen, Pro-Life Replies to Pro-Choice Arguments (column/s)

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.

Physician-assisted killing

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, March 3, 2016

Physician-assisted killing

If you think physician-assisted killing is wrong, it's time to oppose it.

Yes, the Supreme Court of Canada calls it "physician-assisted dying." But this is a euphemism, a nice way of describing what is in fact not nice (like "going to the washroom" is a nice way of saying "going to take a piss"). Physician-assisted dying suggests comfort care at the end of life, but in actuality refers to doctors directly killing patients.

Yes, it's good for objecting doctors to insist on conscience provisions, i.e., insist that if a doctor thinks physician-assisted killing is wrong, then he/she shouldn't have to do it or make referrals to others who will.

But this is not enough. Think about it. If you think killing patients is truly wrong, as, say, slavery is truly wrong, then it's not enough not to be required to own slaves or not to have to refer slave-buyers to slave sellers. We must object that slavery itself is wrong, period, and wrong for all.

Perhaps objecting doctors may only be required to provide accurate information about physician-assisted killing. If so, keep in mind that although it may not be wrong to be required to provide accurate information about slavery, it would be wrong if this information included directions about where to purchase a slave.

Manitoba's College of Physicians and Surgeons might object (as they do) that "Physicians must not impose their moral or religious beliefs about physician assisted dying on patients." But isn't the college (and Canada's Supreme Court) imposing the moral belief that life is no longer the default position and so the patient must choose to live or be killed (patients already have the choice to say no to extraordinary and burdensome treatments that merely prolong dying) and so doctors must ensure (by referral or providing accurate information/ directions) that somebody kills them?

Intellectual health warning: Somebody is having their philosophical cake and eating it too!

I am troubled. I believe we have not learned our philosophical lessons from history.

Consider the following passage from Dr. Leo Alexander (1905-1985), medical advisor to the U.S. Chief of Counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, trials in which Nazis were convicted of crimes against humanity (this passage is from Alexander's paper "Medical Science Under Dictatorship," The New England Journal of Medicine, 241:2, July 14, 1949):

"Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived."

Dr. Alexander continues: "This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in the category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitatable sick."

I don't believe that there is a Nazi Party on Canada's horizon (thank goodness). But I do believe that some of the deep philosophical principles of what Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) called the Culture of Death are becoming prevalent in our society.

Surely we should instead encourage a culture of life wherein palliative care (which can manage physical pain 90-95% of the time) and social supports (for the sufferers and their care-givers) are better funded and more accessible across Canada.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing," is a wise saying attributed to Edmund Bourke and others.

For goodness' sake, then, we must resist the culture of death and insist that medical, social, and psychological problems require medical, social, and psychological solutions—not physician-assisted killing.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.

Further reading: 

• Apologia: Physician-assisted suicide
• Wesley J. Smith, "Canada declares war on Christian doctors and nurses", First Things, March 4, 2016.
• Douglas Farrow, "Canadian Culture of Death: An open letter", First Things, March 3, 2016. (Be sure to read the PDF.)

Euphemisms: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, March 28, 2013

Euphemisms: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The use of language is an art—and so is its abuse. Today I will look at the use and abuse of euphemisms.

When certain words are considered too blunt, harsh, painful, or offensive, people sometimes substitute a euphemism, that is, a more acceptable term, a term with fewer negative connotations or with more positive connotations, than the blunt, harsh, painful, or offensive term.

In her book The Practical Study of Argument, philosopher Trudy Govier explains: “There is a sense in which euphemism is the opposite of emotionally charged language. With emotionally charged language, terms are more emotional than appropriate. Euphemism, on the other hand, involves a kind of whitewashing effect in which descriptions are less emotional than appropriate."

Govier adds, "Bland, abstract, polite language is used to refer to things that would be found embarrassing, demeaning, appalling, or horrible.”

Govier warns, “Euphemistic language [can] function to desensitize us, to dull our awareness of such things.”

I would emphasize that not only can euphemisms desensitize us emotionally, but also they can hide reality—including moral reality.

Interestingly, the dangers inherent in euphemism were almost prophetically envisioned by George Orwell in his famous novel 1984 and in his lesser known essay “Politics and the English Language.” Orwell put forward the idea that an effective mechanism of political control is the manipulation of euphemisms employed in public discussion. (A deeper look at Orwell's work may be a topic for another time.)

Here are some examples of useful but harmless euphemisms.

“I’m sorry that Sam passed away.” These words allow us to be sensitive to Sam’s grieving wife and are infinitely kinder than saying, “I’m sorry about Sam’s getting slowly crushed to death by the gravel truck.”

“May I use the washroom?” Yes, as any parent knows, these words allow children to be sensitive to those around the dinner table. Respect and politeness are good, to be sure.

Or consider these fun euphemisms (from Govier): “I’m vertically challenged,” said jokingly by a short person; “I’m gravitationally challenged,” said jokingly by someone who is overweight; “I’m follically challenged,” said jokingly by someone (such as myself) who is balding.

But some euphemisms are not fun, can be dangerous, and are bad.

Consider the following: “Gather intelligence,” versus spy activity; “pacification centre,” versus concentration camp; “incontinent ordnance,” versus off-target bombs; “friendly fire,” versus shelling friendly villages or one's own troops by mistake; “terminate,” versus kill; “terminate with extreme prejudice,” versus assassinate.

The phrase “terminate a pregnancy” is sometimes used to talk about abortion, which is the destruction of a pre-natal child/fetus. But, of course, birth terminates a pregnancy too.

The phrase "products of conception" is sometimes used to describe the union of the sperm and the egg, which is (or so some allege) no big deal to destroy. But human being with potential is a more informative description of what is destroyed. Destroying a human being is a big deal.

Sadly, in the abortion debate the use of euphemism moves from the merely bad to the downright ugly.

Consider this euphemism: “partial birth abortion.” Dare to think about it. Such an "abortion" involves (a) delivering a late-term prenatal baby until only its head remains in the birth canal, (b) then vacuuming the baby’s brains out through the back of the baby’s skull, and (c) then crushing the baby’s skull to facilitate complete birth.

Consider this euphemism, too: “After-birth abortion.” This phrase has been used recently by some philosophers to describe—and justify—the killing of live born babies. Seriously.

Alarmingly, the above abortion euphemisms have thwarted careful moral thinking about abortion generally, late-term abortion in particular, and infanticide—all of which many if not most people would find morally problematic if they knew the reality hidden behind the words.

Are there any other euphemisms that should concern us presently? What about "sex-selective pregnancy termination"?

I submit that the phrase “sex-selective pregnancy termination” is a euphemism for the premeditated, deliberate killing of innocent preborn children merely because they are female. In other words, I think that the phrase is a euphemism for murder. And I think the act of deliberately killing a pre-natal baby girl, because she is a girl, remains a species of murder whether defended by cultural misogyny or an ideology of unconstrained abortion rights.

Sadly, sex-selective abortion occurs in Canada. Happily, MP Mark Warawa’s motion 408 seeks to stop it. (Sadly, motion 408 was deemed non-votable last week by a Parliamentary sub-committee. Happily, Mr. Warawa is making an appeal.)

To be sure, euphemisms can be useful, even good. Sometimes, however, euphemisms can distort our understanding of what is real and thereby mask—and encourage us to accept—horrendous evil. Such euphemisms are bad, even ugly.

Let’s be careful with our use of language—someone’s life may depend on it!

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)